A must-read. Gary Schwitzer notes some of the more recent citations by major media where they blatantly ignored the evidence of cancer screening tests (NBC’s Nancy Snyderman is the worst offender in my opinion).
I am all for evidence-based cancer screening, and a balanced view needs to be communicated. This includes the very real risks of screening, including the concept of false positives and the harms of the test itself.
So, why doesn’t the media do this? Because they are too damn lazy. Explaining the evidence takes work, and many media members don’t bother with the effort:
“The pro-screening bias comes down to being able to promote a piece,” says Maria Simbra, M.D. She’s a medical reporter for KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh and a member of the Association of Health Care Journalists’ (AHCJ) board of directors.”TV news loves to be able to tell viewers to do something. It’s more promotable than saying, ‘Well, maybe you should just hold off until we understand more.’ Furthermore, emotion plays well on TV — perhaps better than medical evidence.”And evidence, Simbra says, takes a long time to explain. So television news may have an inherent bias in favor of screening. “How do you show the human side of not getting screened?” she asks.
Simbra’s fellow AHJC board member Phil Galewitz is a medical reporter for The Palm Beach (Fla.) Post. He says, “It’s difficult for reporters to focus stories about people getting screened unnecessarily when many aren’t getting screened at all.
“I would guess few health reporters are even aware of the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and the same probably goes for the American College of Physicians. That’s a shame because they often have the most updated and reliable standards.”
Another AHCJ board member, freelance health journalist Andrew Holtz in Portland, Ore., says the quick and easy approach is not to question screening.
“When experts confirm what journalists want to hear, that is, that a screening test saves lives, (journalists) often stop looking for more information or other sources. And because too many reporters and editors lack training in critical thinking on medical or science topics, they fail to challenge expert sources.
